On 15 October 2016 at 18:47, Steve M. Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote: > ... at least not for boost. > > I downloaded the latest release manually by following the links from boost.org > to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.62.0/ > boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2/download >
Yes, this is known to me, but I did not report. The redirector / sourceforge make it hard to distinct identically named files in different subfolders unfortunately. I did too manually repackaged wrong tarballs by hand. There is also possibly an upstream bug, because they name pre-release snapshots identically to final released version number. Regards, Dimitri. > Then I remembered that Dimitri had written a watch file to use the Files- > Excluded facility. So I ran uscan. This leaves me the original download as > well as the re-packed tarball. Comparing the original download to my manual > download indicated many differences. > > Running uscan with --verbose led me to the reflector page https:// > qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ used by uscan. The boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2 > link on that page leads to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/ > snapshots/master/boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2/download > > Notice the crucial difference: the reflector is using "boost/snapshots/master" > whereas the correct URL uses "boost/1.62.0". The snapshots are pulled from > the branch tip and are NOT actual releases. So the reflector is listing bad > URLs. > > Who can I contact to get https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ fixed? > > Note: I didn't look, so I have no idea if this is a widespread problem with > the watch reflector. I'd suggest that people do a spot-check on their own > packages to see. > > Thanks, > -Steve > -- Regards, Dimitri.
